Open Mike 02/10/2026

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 10 comments
Categories: open mike


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

10 comments on “Open Mike 02/10/2026”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

  1. 1

    So if the Green Party are now on track for 15% of the vote, overhangs aside they get 18 seats in Parliament.

    You're probably already aware of what Scott Willis does, and the environmental credentials of Steve Abel.

    So the people we may need to understand a lot more include:

    – Tania Waikato. Lawyer with lots of civil litigation experience, plenty of rrots in Maori business

    – Craig Pauling. He's the Deput at Environment Canterbury, runs RMA hearings. RMA fluent like a lot of this bunch

    – Bhen Goodsir. Currently a specialist supervisor in banking regulation at the Reserve Bank.

    – Yasmin Serhan. Palestinian origin, union organiser.

    In late November we might even need to think about some of their specialist qualifications.

    Anyway as ever, do your research on these intereting people.

    Reply
    1. 1.1

      The Green Party have high-powered MPs and many more soon-to-be MPs. It has been very frustrating to see them sitting in Opposition, vainly using logic try to redirect the idiocy emanating from the Government MPs.

      Reply
    2. 1.2

      Also Rohan O'Neill Stevens, Nelson's youngest ever councillor and Deputy Mayor for a term.

      Tania Waikato was on track to become a judge, is also very skilled as motivating people via social media, is also a champion weightlifter so not someone to mess with!

      Reply
  3. 3

    An important observation and takeaway from last night’s Kingmakers Debate:

    Winston gave the show away by revealing his “vision” is purely and simply a vendetta against anyone he believes has wronged him. His malice towards Ardern saw him walking amongst the antivaxxers and courting their vote to get him back into power. Will his current crop of groupies help him to settle more scores, or will his arch-enemy, the media, continue to expose his real motives?

    https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/10/02/kingmakers-debate-sheds-little-light-on-party-leaders-coronation-plans/#comment-694148

    Why indeed would voters enable NZ’s Trump to do another term and give him even more power & influence (based on current polling)?

    Reply
    1. 3.1

      Why indeed would voters enable NZ’s Trump . . .

      The same question has been asked about Trump himself – and yet, there he is, pondering whether to invoke the Insurrection Act to derail the midterms!

      Reply
      1. 3.1.1

        Peters, like Trump, won’t go until he’s got no more axes to grind with imaginary enemies who dared to doubt him. For example, look at the Trumpian tone & language of his latest two Beehive releases:

        https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/ferry-perfect-storm-fails-arrive

        https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/kiwirail-steamrolls-naysayers-again

        Not to mention his snide remarks at each & every opportunity aimed at certain people.

        Peters is no longer in politics for policies and to represent the people of Aotearoa, if he ever was 100%, but for his personal agenda of grudges and never-ending unfinished business against adversaries. Like Trump, he’s increasingly tilting at windmills to Make Peters The Greatest.

        Reply
    2. 3.2

      It's telling to compare the various reports on the debates from each of the mainstream media.

      Glenn McConnell on Stuff talks up Peters’ experience and expertise in debate:

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/361041274/winston-peters-ruthlessly-brand-and-ruthless-winning-combo-kingmakers-debate

      Winston Peters has a historical anecdote he can conjure for a response to almost any question, and if not he will reach for a cutting quip instead.

      His strategy does two things. It acts to reinforce the NZ First branding that “experience matters”, led by a man who has more experience in politics and government than any other candidate. But in the second play, the one-liners paint Peters as an anti-establishment figure – a maverick fighting the system despite having great experience within it.

      However, McConnell concludes that doesn't mean Peters won the debate as each of the leaders successfully addressed their potential voters:

      Ultimately, each party leader managed to find time to speak directly to their audience – to secure the votes they want.

      Farah Hancock at RNZ looks at the debate from a different angle using some stats that are no surprise to many of us: count of the number of words used by each of the minor party leaders, and the amount of talking turns each of them had.

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politics_election-2026/1676742/winston-peters-wins-the-airtime-battle-in-first-leaders-debate-but-who-won-the-war

      The talking turn count shows what many of us on the left have noticed before in the leaders' election debates, ie that the right wing leaders dominate in the amount of turns they take compare with the GP, Opp & TPM leaders.

      Peters totally dominates with 64 turns; then comes Seymour on 36. Usually in such debates the right wingers dominate by interrupting or even talking over the other candidates. There was only a couple of turns difference between each of the other candidates with Waititi being in 3rd place, then Swarbrick, then Wong.

      For the amount of words each leader used: the count showed something that other research, over decades in various countries show in mixed sex debates, males dominate over females:

      Peters spoke 3013 "discernable" words, then Seymour with 2781, Waititi with 2122 words, then Swarbrick and Wong with less than 2,000 words each, Wong with 1,045 words.

      I suspect the amount of talking Peters does may give some people the impression he is a commanding politician rather than just a whiley operator, unless they look more closely at what he is saying.

      Reply
  4. 4

    Christopher Luxon wrongly suggests allegation about Greens came from media – it came from his minister
    [The Post (paywalled), 2 Oct 2026]

    So what if Luxon got something else wrong? Give him a break – these are reputationally te$ting time$ for our "slower to go faster" CEO.

    NZ's 'clean, green' reputation at risk, ex-UK envoy warns [carefiul now RNZ, 2 Oct 2026]
    A former British high commissioner to New Zealand says our country's "100% Pure New Zealand" brand is at stake, following a Dutch environmental group lodging a complaint with the European Commission alleging New Zealand may have breached parts of its free trade agreement with the European Union.

    Speaking to Morning Report on Friday morning, Clarke said the action being taken against New Zealand was very significant.

    "I think it goes to the integrity and the credibility of the content of trade agreements.

    "New Zealand and the European Union agreed in what is a really gold standard free trade agreement. They both promised not to weaken environmental protection or climate action in order to attract trade or investment.

    "What this complaint is doing is really testing that."


    Anthony Ellison, in the New Zealand Listener, 18 May 2026

    Te$ting, te$ting – O I A.

    Money dictating policy [1 Sept 2026]
    Matt Burgess left the New Zealand Initiative to become Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s chief policy adviser, then received a lobbying document from Fonterra and Z Energy seeking a law change to shield major emitters from Mike Smith’s climate litigation — a document he also received on his personal email and never disclosed under the Official Information Act. The Ombudsman found the Prime Minister’s own office had unreasonably breached the OIA. The Government changed the climate law anyway.

    Reply
    1. 4.1

      As always, the problem is not only Luxon being wrong, but the extraordinary ham-fisted, tetchy, sarcastic response when he is asked about it:

      Election 2026 live: Luxon questioned over '9 new taxes', MPs remember former Adrian Rurawhe | RNZ

      (scroll down the link to the story)

      "Asked for evidence on Friday, Luxon put the responsibility back on reporters to investigate whether Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick had any involvement.

      "That'd be up for you guys to ascertain whether she has or hasn't," he said.

      Luxon then suggested that the media had first raised the possibility of Swarbrick's involvement.

      "I'm just saying that's not appropriate if that's the case. But equally, I'm sure she hasn't done that."

      Told that the Green Party had not been involved, Luxon replied: "Great, great. That's good to hear. That's good that you've bottomed that out. Well done, well done… Good job."

      He is incapable of doing what any smart politician does: a quick apology and story dies.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *